Thursday, October 2, 2008

Anti-Smear Part 1

There are a plethora of emails, blog posts, youtube videos, and misinformed people out there that I feel the need to get things off my chest.

Barack Hussein ObamaThere are those in this country who feel the need to emphasize that Obama's middle name is Hussein. This is by far one of the most annoying smears that I've found. First of all, all one has to do is do a quick Wikipedia search and do a little reading to find that his father's name is Barack Hussein Obama. Therefor, he was named after his father, and not the former president of Iraq like so many people like to say. Still not satisfied? Think his father was named after Saddam Hussein? Well that is a slight impossibility because Barack Hussein Obama Sr, was born on in 1936, also according to Wikipedia. Saddam Hussein wasn't born until April 1937, also according toWikipedia. Not only that, the likelihood of Barack Obama Jr's parents even knowing who Saddam Hussein was in 1961 when he was born is very slim. In 1961, Saddam Hussein was only 24 and his power and influence were next to none.

Fallen Soldier's BraceletAs some of the more rumor mill people may have already read, there are people that have used Obama's reference of the soldiers bracelet during the debate against him. First off, early in the campaign, the mother asked the campaign not to mention the bracelet while giving speeches at campaign stops or during debates. While the campaign didnt' respond to the email, Obama never mentioned the bracelet until Friday night's debate. I agree, that perhaps he shouldn't have mentioned the bracelet because the family asked him not to. However, the reaction of the mother, who gave Obama the bracelet wasn't the highly negative reaction that has been posted on many websites. For the truth, you can go to The Associated Press or CBS News for the story from a reliable source rather than from a random blog. I have another issue with this though, and it relates to John McCain. If you watch nearly every speech that he has made there are two things that he always mentions, one is his time spent in prison in Vietnam, and the second is the bracelet that he got form the mother of a soldier. Granted, the mother may feel comfortable that he makes reference to this bracelet all the time, but personally, I feel it is disrespectful for McCain to make reference to it so much. Others may think that it is simply honoring the memory of this young man, which I agree with to an extent. My issue is that when do you cross the line of honoring the memory of the soldier, and move into, at least partially, using the bracelet for political gain. That may sound a little rude, but to mention the bracelet nearly every time that he speaks reeks of using it for political gain to me.

OMG WTF HE'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!!!I actually received this in an email from an acquaintance today on Obama's supposed "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." There is a simple fact that many people do not realize. There are 535 people in Congress, for a bill to pass, you need at least 268 votes in the house before the bill moves onto the Senate where you need at least 51 more for the bill to pass. Quite honestly, there is no way that the majority of these things on this 10 point plan would pass, even if they were true.Factcheck.org did some investigation, as they usually do when ever a candidate comes under fire for one reason or another, into Obama's stance on the gun issue. They found that the NRA pretty much fabricated some of these 10 points out of thin air. For starters on where Obama stands on gun issues you can go to his website to view his position. If that doesn't satisfy you, you can go to The Washington Post or CBS News I worked at Lear Corporation, a supplier for General Motors for almost 8 years, there was a significant number of people who worked there who sided with the NRA no matter what a candidate would say about guns. My opinion is that the NRA, one of Washington's most powerful lobbyist groups, is one of the dirtiest organizations in existence. I find their tactics quite questionable at times. Even though Obama has clearly stated many times that he is not going to take away anybody's right to bear arms, the NRA still screams at their members and instills the fear that their right will disappear under a democrats watch. This is simply not true as this is a right that will never go away. It would be political suicide for a candidate for president to be so anti-gun as the NRA paints Obama to be.

Obama Supports InfanticideI recently saw a video on youtube that I have some issues with. For starters, the group that put this video up on youtube is called, American News Today, from just browsing their website I instantly had a few problems with it. For one, they are obvious about the fact that they back McCain. I question any source that is as blatant about their endorsement of a candidate as a reliable source for finding out information about their opponent. I admit that it is difficult sometimes to make take an unbiased position on things. However, it seems that the further to the right or the left you go, the harder it becomes to look at things from an unbiased perspective. Some people may think that this is simply someone having strong convictions; I call it stubbornness and arrogance. Another thing is that a link on the side of the page is to a website nohussein.com, which I have already covered the "Hussein" issue above. The website instantly loses a lot of credibility for having that link there. I checked out "nohussein.com" and it is filled with complete lies and half-truths. I always have issues with websites that don't' cite their sources, and this website cites very few if any at all. Remember math class when your teacher said "show your work."? It applies to reporting and trying to convince people of a point. Simply referencing a blog from Clark Anderson from Kalamazoo, Michigan, doesn't count as a credible source. A real source from real people with real credentials isn't too much to ask, as long as you aren't one of those people who like to take things out of context. Another issue, is that this organization "American News Today" is nothing more than a huge blog. Granted I didn't spend much time there as it is 1am and I need to get to sleep, but blogs are not credible sources unless they are written from a generally unbiased perspective and/or cite their sources, and the sources you cite must be credible one.

Anyways, back to the point. Obama stated that his reason for voting no, and many of his colleagues in the Illinois state senate as well, was because he believed it to be an attack on Roe v. Wade and a law already existed on the books similar to the "born alive act" passed by the federal government. This statute stated in the very first section:

Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. (b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.I think that makes it pretty clear. However, I will agree that this is a very complicated issue that I could probably write a book on governing the philosophy involved in this issue, I won't do that here. In this New York Times article, it give a full explanation on what the Illinois bill contained, among the things in the bill, were:

But the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill. The accompanying legislation, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, would have allowed legal action "on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth."…that bill would have introduced the possibility that doctors could be sued for failing to take extraordinary measures to save the lives of pre-viable infants, those born so prematurely that they could not possibly survive. As a result, they argue, it is disingenuous of anti-abortion organizations to claim that Mr. Obama was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law.

It is also fairly interesting to note, that this bill that if you voted no for it you supported infanticide, was not passed even when Republicans were the majority in the Illinois State Senate. If Obama is guilty then they all are and I haven't heard any mention of the other people who voted against this bill, because apparently republicans and democrats alike are in the same boat as well. Another issue that I have, if this woman, Jill Stanek (and don't' get me wrong, I'm not calling her a liar) did witness this, happening, it would clearly be in violation of Illinois state statues and that attending physician should have been charged with at Class 3 Felony.

I've rambled, but anyways, for more information you can visit Obama's site he doesn't just claim things he cites sources, like Illinois Compiled Statutes from the state governments official website, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

Well, I'm tired and I have to go to bed. I'm going to write more later. Thanks for reading.